Nyayavatara

Author(s): Satyaranjan Banerjee
Publisher: Sanskrit Book Depot P Ltd

Page 52

20
न्यायावतारः
Here the example involves doubt as to the validity of both the major and middle terms (sādhya and sādhana), for it is doubtful whether Buddha was devoid of passions and gave his own flesh to the hungry.
Some unnecessarily lay down three other kinds of fallacy of the heterogeneous example (vaidharmya-drstāntābhāsa), viz.:(1) Unseparated (avyatireki) : This person is not devoid of passions (major
term), because he is a speaker (middle term); whoever is devoid of passions is not a speaker, as a piece of stone (heterogeneous
example). Here though a piece of stone is both "devoid of passions" and "not a speaker," yet there is no unavoidable separation (vyatireka-vyāpti ) between "devoid of passions" and "a speaker." (2) Of separation unshown apradarSita-vyatireka:
Sound is non-eternal (major term), because it is a product (middle
___term); as ether (example). Here though there is an unavoidable separation between "product" and "eternal", yet it has not been shown in the proper form, such as: "Whatever is eternal is not a product, as ether."
[Dinnāga the Buddhist urged the necessity of converting the heterogeneous example into a universal negative proposition with a view to pointing out the connection of the middle term and the major term). (3) Of contrary separation (viparita-vyatireka) :
Sound is not eternal (major term), because it is a product (middle
term); whatever is not a product is eternal, as ether (example). Here the example has been put in a contrary way, for the proper form should have been : "Whatever is eternal is not a product, as ether."
वाद्य क्त साधने प्रोक्तदोषाणामुदभावनम् । दूषणं निरवद्य तु दूषणाभासनामकम् ॥ २६ ॥
साध्यते प्रतिपाद्यप्रतीतौ आरोह्यते तु मेयं येन तत् साधनं तच्च अनेकरूपं प्राक् प्रत्यपादि। तद्यथा। क्वचित् हेतुरेवैकः, क्वचित् पक्षहेतू, क्वचित् पक्षहेतुदृष्टान्ताः क्वचित् ते एव सोपनयाः, क्वचित् सनिगमनाः, क्वचित् एकैकतच्छ द्धिवृद्ध्येति । ... तत्रेह सम्यक्साधनस्य दूषयितुमशक्यत्वात् साधनाभास एव तत्सामोपपत्तेः ... । तत्र प्रोक्तदोषाणां प्रत्यक्षादिनिराकृतपक्षासिद्धादिहेतुसाध्यादिविकलदृष्टान्ताद्युपन्यासलक्षणानामुद्भावनं प्राश्निकानां पुरतः प्रकाशनं यत् तद् दृष्यते स्वाभिप्रेतसाध्यप्रत्यायनवैकल्यलक्षणं विकृति नीयते साधनमनेनेति दूषणमिति ज्ञेयम् ।। २६ ॥
26. Refutation (dusana) is the pointing out of the aforesaid fallacies in the reasoning of an opponent; but it is called a semblance of a refutation (dūşaņābhāsa) when the reasoning is really devoid of defects.